The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Family Focused Practice in Mental Health Care: An Integrative Review

While mental health services are increasingly encouraged to engage in family-focused practice, it is a nebulous and poorly understood term. The aim of this paper was to examine and synthesize evidence on the concept and scope of family-focused practice in adult and child and youth mental health care settings. An integrative literature review method was used. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Proquest electronic databases were systematically searched forabstracts published in English between 1994-2014. Data were extracted and constant comparative analysis conducted with 40 included articles. Family-focused practice was conceptualised variously depending on who was included in the „family‟, whether the focus was family of origin or family of procreation, and the context of practice. As a finding of the review, six core and inter-related family-focused practices were identified: family care planning andgoal-setting; liaison between families and services; instrumental, emotional and social support; assessment; psychoeducation; and a coordinated system of care between families and services. While family is a troubled concept, „family‟ as defined by its members forms a basis for practice that is oriented to providing a „whole of family‟ approach to care. In order to strengthen familymembers‟ wellbeing and improve their individual and collective outcomes, key principles and practices of family-focused practice are recommended for clinicians and policy makers across mental health settings.

Recognizing and reporting child physical abuse: a cross sectional survey of primary health care professionals

Objectives: To assess primary health care professionalsâ?? ability to recognise child physical abuse within their everyday practice. Design: Cross-sectional survey Participants: A stratified random sample of 979 nurses, doctors, and dentists working in primary care in NI. Results: Four hundred and thirty one primary health care professionals responded [44% response rate]. Thirty two per cent were doctors, 35% were dentists and 33% were nurse professionals. The mean age was 41.63 years. Fifty-nine percent (251) stated that they had seen a suspicious case of child physical abuse and 47% (201) said they had reported it. Seventy-two per cent (310) of participants were aware of the mechanisms for reporting child physical abuse. Ability and willingness to recognise and report abuse discriminated the three professions. Conclusions: The findings suggest a professional reluctance to engage in recognising and reporting abuse. Barriers could be reduced by providing training and professional support for the primary care professionals.